LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST vs Suman Lata

IT is an appeal against the order dated 13.8.1998 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (hereinafter called the District Forum). Vide the above said order, the District Forum held that the complainant was entitled to allotment of plot of 200 sq. yards in 475 Acre Scheme or in any other scheme which is equally developed at the rate prevalent on the date of resolution of the opposite party dated 12.8.1983. IT was further observed regarding the allotment of plot to the complainant, as under : "However, it will be subject to any orders of the Hon''ble High Court, if any, as alleged by the opposite party. In case there are no stay orders of the Hon''ble High Court, the allotment be given within three months from the receipt of this order."

THIS fact is not denied that the complainant applied to the State Government for allotment of a plot out of Government quota. Another fact is also not disputed that no actual allotment of plot was made to the complainant. If no actual allotment of the plot was made to the complainant then the complainant does not fall under the term consumer as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ''Consumer'' has been defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act as under : "any person who- (i) buys any goods for a consideration; which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or (ii) hires or avails of any services for consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and include any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payments, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first-mentioned person."

In the case in hand, admittedly no allotment of any plot has been made in favour of the complainant. The complainant, thus, cannot be considered to be a consumer. The order of the District Forum is, thus, without jurisdiction.

Even otherwise a hypothetical order could not be passed by the District Forum. As stated above, the District Forum has ordered that the allotment of the plot shall be subject to the orders of the Hon''ble High Court, if any as alleged by the opposite party and in case there are no stay orders of the Hon''ble High Court, the allotment be made within three months of the receipt of this order. This observation made in the order is also illegal and without jurisdiction.

THIS view of our is based upon the decision of this Commission reported in II (1997) CPJ 421=1997 (1) CPC 625, Kapoor Singh v. Improvement Trust Batala & Ors. In view of our discussion made above, we hold that the complainant does not fall under the definition of a consumer under the Act. The order dated 13.8.1998 of the District Forum is, thus, set aside as being without jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, however without any order as to costs.

BEFORE parting with the order, we do not debar the complainant to approach any Appropriate Authority for the redress of her grievance in accordance with law. Appeal allowed. Appeal allowed.